Kevin, sorry to be the one to break the news to you, but consciousness is material.

This is not technically true. We don't know what consciousness is, or if it exists, in any meaningful empirical way. People just have a "sense" that they're conscious, and the way people act is something we understand in terms of consciousness. Empirically, the best we can say is that human consciousness, if it can be said to exist, is ordinarily attached to a physical object (a brain) about which a moderate amount is known. Since brains follow physical rules and consciousness (if it can be said to exist) seems, to all evidence, to be attached to the brain's physical state, it follows that consciousness seems to be material. But we can't empirically say that consciousness is material because we don't know what or if it is!

Of course, the outside effects of consciousness are different. The things people say and do, in spite of the fact that we can't really quantify their people-ness (or "consciousness"), are really really extensively studied by almost every field we'd call the humanities or social sciences. So they're potentially inside the field of scientific investigation.

Quote

I'm not talking about supernatural causation--as in magic. Just non-material causation, such as human consciousness. Right now, I see many branches of science--particularly evolutionary biology--as highly rationalistic. Theory-driven rather than evidence driven. ID seems to be an attempt to call science back to a more empirical approach--at least according to the rhetoric I've heard from ID advocates.

This is wrong because it relies upon tinkering with the definition of "material". "Material causes", in the sense of being the subject for science, means that it effects or originates in something we can observe. Any effect we can observe is "material", more or less, whether it's quantum, human, or magical. Non-material causation is by definition outside of scientific investigation, even more so than magic would be. If magic could be shown to do something, we'd call its effects "material" for purposes of measurement. The material effect could be quantity of lead turned to gold, estimated amount of psychokinetic force exerted, statistical accuracy of psychic predictions, or whatever else. So trying to introduce "non-material causes" is essentially meaningless, since if it's an observed cause at all, it's considered "material" enough to be a part of scientific investigation anyway. There's also plenty of heavy hints that "non-material causes" is a codeword for God, but you knew I was going to say that.

On a related note, evolutionary biology's not really that theoretical. It's anchored, heavily, in empirical findings from field studies and molecular biology. There are many theorists - Hamilton and Dawkins are my personal favorites - who largely work out abstract or mathematical theories, but their theories stand or fall based upon their ability to predict and account for empirical results. If an empirical finding comes back that flatly contradicts a specific hypothesis in Dawkins' latest paper, Dawkins is screwed and his next paper will likely be about why and how he thinks his model's predictions diverged from reality. For this reason, even the most highly "theoretical" biologists are obsessively focused on empirical facts. There's also some molecular biologists or biochemists who aren't very interested in overarching theories, and they're even more outrageously hardcore empiricists.

Basically what I'm saying is that this isn't empiricism vs rationalism. Or, if it is, evolutionary biology appears to be on the empiricist side. "Follow the evidence wherever it leads" is a good catchphrase, because nobody disagrees with it. Since the evidence doesn't appear to actually lead to ID, though, it's nothing more than a catchphrase.

--------------"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

Steve: For the record, I said, "ID seems to be an attempt to call science back to a more empirical approach--at least according to the rhetoric I've heard from ID advocates." You seem to have missed that qualifier. For a good discussion on this, I'd highly recommend "Science's Blind Spot" by Cornelius Hunter.

Wayne: To the best of my knowledge we never interviewed Robert Pennock. If we had, the transcript and footage would have definitely crossed my desk.

Doc Bill: I think the jury is still out on exactly what consciousness is. As for Sternberg, you'll just have to watch the film.

Richard: The Demarcaction Problem is the heart of this controversy, isn't it? I'm no expert on Popper's demarcation criterion, but I am somewhat familiar with his assertion that a hypothesis, proposition or theory is scientific only if it is falsifiable--as well as subsequent criticisms of his position, namely, that virtually all scientific inquiry begins with a set of unfalsifiable assumptions.

To the best of my knowledge we never interviewed Robert Pennock. If we had, the transcript and footage would have definitely crossed my desk.

No film... that's right, the rejection came after the initial telephone interview. So I misspoke concerning a cutting room floor, but there was contact between the producers and Pennock. Pennock's response, though, wasn't considered a "side" of the discussion that the CrossroadsExpelled producers felt their audience needed to hear.

How can we extrapolate from designers which we may observe, to designers we can not observe, or have not observed?

Does knowing that a piece of stick and leaves is made by a caddisfly, or that scratches on a tree were made by a giant felid, give you any additional leverage in attempting to peek up Dame Nature's skirt?

How does one justify saying "Well, we know that foxes crap on top of logs, and there is crap on top of that log. Let's use this method to determine whether or not we are living in the best of all possible worlds?"

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

Kevin, the reason I asked the question is because I have followed the Sternberg saga for years.

I fully expected you to say "watch the film" because you can't answer the question. Just like Behe and Dembski resort to "read my book" when asked a question not addressed in their books.

As you and I both know, Sternberg wasn't expelled or fired or demoted from anything. He got caught with his ethical pants down. Sternberg's situation has nothing to do with his beliefs and everything to do with his ethics and honesty.

So, really, Expelled is like a "documentary" about crop circles. Are they made by aliens? Some people still think so! You decide!

Hey, maybe Sternberg makes crop circles! Could be a story for a new film.

As for being mystified by "my cause," my main interest in this project is the whole philosophy of science angle. How do we conceptualize science and its implications? How can we know that we know anything? The debate between rationalism and empiricism.

Not in the slightest. The two necessarily go together.

Quote

Epistemology, that sort of thing. Personally, I see ID as a challenge not just to Darwinian evolution but to the very foundation of the scientific enterprise itself.

Of course it is, since ID insists that sticking to the evidence doesn't matter.

Quote

Will we allow non-material causation into science or won't we?

If you ever find evidence for "non-material causation," we will allow it into science. What you're calling "material causation" is what we call "causation" in science. Matter itself is at issue as to origin and meaning.

Quote

Most people think this question was settled decades or centuries ago.

In science, it was.

Quote

IDers say new evidence in biology and elsewhere compels us to reconsider our answer.

And we've asked, futilely, for any legitimate evidence that this is so.

Quote

I find this intriguing, especially when you bring in philosophers like Michael Polanyi, Alvin Plantinga, and new discoveries in quantum physics that are essentially saying the same thing. I'm not talking about supernatural causation--as in magic. Just non-material causation, such as human consciousness.

That's just nonsense. By all of the evidence we have, human consciousness does not violate any physics, including the laws of thermodynamics. What is more, it appears evolved. It's merely a presupposition of IDists that consciousness is "non-material," whatever that phrase is supposed to mean.

Besides which, human consciousness has never been excluded from science as a causal phenomenon. So you're attacking a strawman.

Quote

Right now, I see many branches of science--particularly evolutionary biology--as highly rationalistic.

Actually, it's ID that tries to use rational means such as mathematics to deny the typical inferences of descent by observed processes of all of life from a single source (if perhaps a population rather than an individual or pair of conjugators). We rely on the evidence to come up with explanatory models.

Quote

Theory-driven rather than evidence driven.

Perhaps such mistakes are why you call evolutionary theory "Darwinism," because you fail to understand that the theory has changed with the evidence.

Quote

ID seems to be an attempt to call science back to a more empirical approach--at least according to the rhetoric I've heard from ID advocates.

Perhaps you ought to listen to the other side for once.

Quote

(I can't tell you how many times I've heard them say, "Follow the evidence wherever it leads.")

Oh, so the fact that we've pointed out time and again that they fail to follow the evidence has been ignored by you. I guess that explains why the movie is so full of errors and false accusation.

Quote

So I'm prone to wonder if all the fireworks over ID are really just the most recent manifestation of an age-old scientific debate that's been cloaked in all sorts of modern religious and political agendas.

Why didn't you bother to find out, before accusing scientists of numerous calumnies?

Quote

It's just the latest swing of the rationalist/empiricist pendulum. At least that's one way of trying to conceptualize it. I could be way off. It's been a long day.

It's not like we haven't actually answered every one of your claims, with evidence, long ago.

As for being mystified by "my cause," my main interest in this project is the whole philosophy of science angle. How do we conceptualize science and its implications? How can we know that we know anything? The debate between rationalism and empiricism.

This is delusional. I mean, might as well call a spade a spade. Expelled is not about the debate between rationalism and empericism, it's the debate between creationism and science. But it's not even that, judging it ONLY from its website, blog, and Ben Stein's interviews, Expelled is pure anti-science propaganda and the evil doers are "big science" and the good guys are the persecuted christians.

From claiming "Darwinism" caused Hitler to claiming evolution cannot explain how the world began, while portraying ID as anything but pseudoscience it's NOTHING but propaganda for the extreemly ignorant and/or politically motivated.

Let's not kid ourselves, Kevin Miller. You are a religious propagandist.

Oh, and I plan to watch the movie, no doubt. I just won't pay any money to do so.

editsz: any truth to the rumor that Ben Stein and Expelled won the Leni Riefenstahl Best Documentary Award?

Why does the son of a prominent economist (himself claiming to be a prominent economist, actor, intellectual, etc.) want to be associated with anti-intellectual low-lives like Ken Ham? Isn’t Ben Stein embarrassed at all?

Why does the son of a professor in evolutionary biology (himself claiming to speak for evolutionary biologists) [Dembski] want to be associated with anti-intellectual low-lives like Michael Behe, Denyse O’Leary, et al? I would be humiliated!

These people grew up with everything I never had, and kicked that in the teeth for the sake of garnering applause from the same type of people I ran away from, and didn’t want to become.

What is it with this trend in our culture, simultaneously championing “plain folks” ignorance and conformity and conventionality, while pretending that same popular ignorance and conformity and anti-intellectual mediocrity is somehow avant-guarde, dangerous, radical, hip, and young?

“I’ll tell you why,” said Rev.Barky to me last night [I’m paraphrasing, of course]. “These people couldn’t measure up to the expectations that their parents had for them. So they found some people that they could ‘wow.’ Now they’re famous! That’s why they preach to children, because children are easy to manipulate. That’s why they hang out with uneducated adults for the same reason. They market their mediocrity, because they don’t have the talent or the imagination to do anything really important.”

You know guys, you are about as predictable as an animal driven soley by hunger and instinct. Sort of like a crocodile. What never ceases to amaze me is how completely binary your thinking is. This is supremely ironic in a field that introduced us to ideas like transitional forms, evolutionary trajectories and continuums of change. You just can't seem to shake free of the "either/or" "black/white" thinking that pretty much became untenable during the first decades of the 20th century. You bear all the marks of the religious fundamentalists you despise: A complete inability to countenance two seemingly contradictory ideas in your brain and a fervent need to squash and destroy anyone who diagrees with you. This is exactly why I was initially hesitant to accept Chris's invitation to come over here and chat. Not because I'm afraid of criticism (I could get involved with a project like "Expelled" if I were afraid of that) but because of your utter disinterest in true debate and discussion. It's more like a dogpile than a dialogue. And frankly, it's just supremely boring. So I'll let you guys get back to being oh so clever while I get back to doing something a little more productive.

You know guys, you are about as predictable as an animal driven soley by hunger and instinct. Sort of like a crocodile. What never ceases to amaze me is how completely binary your thinking is. This is supremely ironic in a field that introduced us to ideas like transitional forms, evolutionary trajectories and continuums of change. You just can't seem to shake free of the "either/or" "black/white" thinking that pretty much became untenable during the first decades of the 20th century. You bear all the marks of the religious fundamentalists you despise: A complete inability to countenance two seemingly contradictory ideas in your brain and a fervent need to squash and destroy anyone who diagrees with you. This is exactly why I was initially hesitant to accept Chris's invitation to come over here and chat. Not because I'm afraid of criticism (I could get involved with a project like "Expelled" if I were afraid of that) but because of your utter disinterest in true debate and discussion. It's more like a dogpile than a dialogue. And frankly, it's just supremely boring. So I'll let you guys get back to being oh so clever while I get back to doing something a little more productive.

Oh dear, the attack chihuahua can dish it out so long as he is insulated from, you know, actually answering questions, supplying evidence, and making sense.

The moment he's called to account for his bigotry, dishonesty, and complete lack of any evidence or reasonable arguments, he's back to the chihuahua mode, now whining in the corner about how he's treated.

Gee, yes, Kevin, we are predictable, we react badly against unsupported and unsupportable accusations. This is part of our virtue, our honesty, and it is apparently something that you dislike as such.

Steve: For the record, I said, "ID seems to be an attempt to call science back to a more empirical approach--at least according to the rhetoric I've heard from ID advocates." You seem to have missed that qualifier.

No, the qualifier doesn't absolve you here. You're passing along obviously bogus claims and then when you're called on it, blaming others. Learn something about science and the philosophy of science and understand why your film is stupid propaganda.

Steve: For the record, I said, "ID seems to be an attempt to call science back to a more empirical approach--at least according to the rhetoric I've heard from ID advocates." You seem to have missed that qualifier.

No, the qualifier doesn't absolve you here. You're passing along obviously bogus claims and then when you're called on it, blaming others. Learn something about science and the philosophy of science and understand why your film is stupid propaganda.

Research the ID claims to see if what they claimed was actually true? Heaven forfend!

--------------"Following what I just wrote about fitness, you’re taking refuge in what we see in the world." PaV

I'm sorry that you're too good to actually address what anyone thinks, Kevin. Since you won't actually explain why, we'll just have to take your word that we're all wrong, dogmatic, and animally unreasoning. I can only imagine that knowing why this was true would enrich all of our lives, but I guess I'm wrong and you'd only be casting pearls before swine.

The other part that deserves a tap is the "dogpile" crack. Are only two or three people allowed to disagree with you at once? You can answer at your leisure, it's not like you're getting rushed.

--------------"ALL eight of the "nature" miracles of Jesus could have been accomplished via the electroweak quantum tunneling mechanism. For example, walking on water could be accomplished by directing a neutrino beam created just below Jesus' feet downward." - Frank Tipler, ISCID fellow

You know guys, you are about as predictable as an animal driven soley by hunger and instinct. Sort of like a crocodile. What never ceases to amaze me is how completely binary your thinking is. This is supremely ironic in a field that introduced us to ideas like transitional forms, evolutionary trajectories and continuums of change. You just can't seem to shake free of the "either/or" "black/white" thinking that pretty much became untenable during the first decades of the 20th century. You bear all the marks of the religious fundamentalists you despise: A complete inability to countenance two seemingly contradictory ideas in your brain and a fervent need to squash and destroy anyone who diagrees with you. This is exactly why I was initially hesitant to accept Chris's invitation to come over here and chat. Not because I'm afraid of criticism (I could get involved with a project like "Expelled" if I were afraid of that) but because of your utter disinterest in true debate and discussion. It's more like a dogpile than a dialogue. And frankly, it's just supremely boring. So I'll let you guys get back to being oh so clever while I get back to doing something a little more productive.

Ooooh! Two sides to every story! You are fundies too! "Utter disinterest in debate and discussion".

We brought up some legitimate questions - but you're just doing the "not fair" dance. You've provided nothing of substance. I was hoping from more from you. Disappointed - but given your tone, enjoy the failure that comes with your dishonest endeavour.

You guys are merely proving my point. The only thing you seem to be interested in is attacking me personally. Any attempt at discussion is immediately turned into an opportunity to tell me what a stupid, smug, ignorant propagandist I am. I'm not whining about that. It's just not my idea of a good time. If anyone wants to approach me with a formal interview request for an established publication or web site, I'm all for it. But I'm not going to be the bloody chicken in the henhouse just so you have a few hours of entertainment.

It's difficult, Kevin, because you seem to want to defend something without actually defending it. There are many, in my opinion, legitimate concerns with intelligent design, catalogued here and elsewhere. It would appear to offer nothing from a predictive / descriptive scientific standpoint - the big "who, how, where, when and possibly why" questions. But you don't want to field these questions. No IDers do. But they want to teach it in schools.

Steve: For the record, I said, "ID seems to be an attempt to call science back to a more empirical approach--at least according to the rhetoric I've heard from ID advocates." You seem to have missed that qualifier. For a good discussion on this, I'd highly recommend "Science's Blind Spot" by Cornelius Hunter.

Kevin - This is the same Cornelius Hunter than ran away crying from this blog last year!

Please note that I did not attack you one tiny little bit whatsoever. And I won't do such a thing unless provoked.

Now, I had some really nice friendly touchy feely questions about this project you are working on, and so does everyone else. I can wait my turn.

But since you are running around pushing this idea of 'Intelligent Design', regardless of what we know about your fellow travelers, I am asking you 'What Is Design?' How is beaver dam design equivalent to designing bacterial flagella? How is SETI comparable to designing blood clots? How is Colonel Custard, in the Drawing Room, with an icicle dagger IN ANY WAY comparable to The Privileged Planet?

If irreducible complexity is a hallmark of design, does this mean that the designer is neither irreducible, nor complex? Doesn't that mean that God is rather ordinary and by Dembski's criterion explainable by recourse to regularity, ie natural law?

Do you really believe all this stuff, or is it just a handy hook for some publicity?

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

You guys are merely proving my point. The only thing you seem to be interested in is attacking me personally.

That's the whole theme of Expelled, you lie about us, we respond like anyone unfairly accused, and then you're whimpering about how you're abused.

Well guess what, we don't actually appreciate a bunch of dishonest attacks. We didn't come out and attack you, you came out and lied about us.

Learn some decency. We're not going to "meet you halfway" on your implications that we're Nazis or Stalinists, we're going to demand that you support such dishonest attacks.

Furthermore, not only do you refuse to supply evidence that ID is anything but a whiny bunch of lies about science, you can't supply any evidence that it's been treated inappropriately by science, or that there is a lack of opennness to its claims (it's been discussed in excruciating detail on the web, and a good deal elsewhere). The fact is that you're a bunch of incompetent losers who can't make a case for your claims, from persecution to your supposed science, and there's no reason for us not to tell that truth.

As I've asked previously on the web, just what evidence would IDists supply, if they weren't (supposedly) limited to supplying "naturalistic" or "materialistic" evidence (those modifiers merely stand in place of other considerations, in any event)?

I've never gotten a reply to that question.

Or to put it another way, how would Kevin Miller like to be tried in court without using the standards of evidence used in both science and in courts? I've never gotten a response to those questions I've asked of IDists either.

And no, we're not going to be "open" to the idea that evidence-free tripe is worth considering. Come up with evidence that is repeatable and arguable, and then we'll talk. The blather that Miller hopes will obfuscate the fact that he has no evidence and no arguments is not grounds for a discussion.

We wouldn't be attacking you personally if you actually could do anything but attack us first, Miller. It's your lack of any sort of considerable evidence and arguments that leaves us no choice but to attack you for bringing in intellectually dishonest tripe.

Here is my question - who was Ben's biology consultant for Expelled? Who advised him on evolution, Darwin and biology? Ben consulted with many individuals regarding biology and Darwinism, some of whom I know and some I don't. One individual who I know had a significant influence on him is mathematician and philosopher David Berlinski. He was also very impressed with Michael Shermer. But Ben Stein is no one's toady. He is a completely free agent who has developed his own unique perspective on this issue.

Did you guys do ANY checking up on the Discovery Institute? Their goals and objectives? Of course we did. We researched them extensively and conducted interviews with numerous Discovery fellows.

And I note Kevin never answered my question - have you read the Wedge Strategy/Document? You can read the original here. Yes, I've read this document as well as Discovery's response. My response is that you can't disqualify a theory merely b/c it is religiously motivated. In that case, you'd have to disqualify anything coming out of Richard Dawkins or PZ Myers who aren't afraid to conflate their religious or areligious beliefs with their science. It all comes down to the arguments and the evidence. So the Wedge document is a moot point from my perspective. I'd rather disentagle the scientific questions from the religious questions so that the real question becomes, can ID produce compelling evidence and arguments to back up their theories? I think the jury is still out on that. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't get a chance to try. Virtually all of the IDers I met--and I met a lot--appeared to be sincere, hard-working scientists just like their peers. Religious agendas aside, I really do believe that people like Sternberg, Dembski, Marks, Berlinski, Gonzalez, Behe, etc are sincerely seeking the truth. That may be difficult for some of you to accept, but they weren't anywhere close to the fundamentalist bogeymen they're often made out to be.

And do you teach your kids that ID is science, Kevin? Do you teach them that Darwin caused the Holocaust?

My kids are still pretty young, so at this point I'm merely trying to introduce them to the wonders of the natural world. How will that change when they get older? Rather than shove any particular theory down their throats, I hope to teach them how to think critically about the various options that are out there and then make up their own minds. But I also want to encourage them that life is about constant change and growth, so they should be wary of locking themselves down to one position for all of time.